TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => The Third Dimension => Topic started by: Kerry on March 01, 2006, 09:15:58 PM
-
Do you use 3D Drafting ,
and IF so, for what discipline ?
2 Votes allowed
.... and feel free to add comments .. :-)
-
I voted yes and other because I support the the Electrical discipline primarilly, but not exclusively. We don't "3D draft" as much as we "model in 3D". May be an anal distinction, but it's how everyone in the industry, locally anyway, refers to it.
What does the Electrical discipline model? Everything from Raceways (Cable Trays), Transformers, Grounding Grids, Control Stations to Heat Tracing Power Points and RTDs yada.
-
We've been using 3D for the last years on major refinery work for Civil, Structural, mechanical, and electrical applications.
-
3D modelling for structural steel and mining equipment (materials handling) for about 6 years. Still do some 2d work depending on the client.
-
YES & Civil,
Grading, surface modeling, etc.
-
I use 3D at the conceptual design phase - architectural.
All my CD's are done 100% in 2D
-
3D modelling for structural steel and mining equipment (materials handling) for about 6 years. Still do some 2d work depending on the client.
^ ditto what Mick said, for just a bit longer :-) ..
Plus concrete Panels, concrete Precast ...
-
^ ditto what Mick said, for just a bit longer ..
Plus concrete Panels, concrete Precast ...
^ ditto plus Bin and Chutes
-
Yes, but only when using Civil 3D. The only other time I tried to use 3D was a project sign for a subdivision at a client's request - what a horrible mess I made of that. It finally worked out, but I am sure most of my time never got billed.
-
Over 90% 2d , only use 3d for the more tricky stuff. Chose other, as drawing scenery is a little architectural a little mechanical.
-
Mines the "No"
I have a dream to be able to find a job that uses 3D, so far, no luck :-(
-
Here's a thought ...
How about some of the members who haven't posted < much or at all > have a vote and post a comment.
It would be good to hear from you. ... really !
Heh Jonesy, 3D is just 2d with depth ...
edit for BFF : BigFatFingers
-
Kerry, what sucks is that I used to teach 3D at college, but no-one round here wants to use it. :realmad:
-
We are Doing 3D modeling with those 3D models gets processed for 2D drawing all mechanical. If you do 3D models do you really need 2D drawings?
We have old 2D drawings in Autocad. All new work is done in 3D
-
Yes to 3D but only in circumstances when a 2D drawing does not adequately convey the design to the construction crew or when we need to examine the way a particular device or assembly works or does not work as the case may be.
-
We use 3D modeling to represent underground mines. It is particularly useful in visualizing where the drilled holes are located and if they are located where they are supposed to be.
-
I only do residential work. Every preliminary plan I do for a homeowner is sent out with a couple of different 3d visual line drawings at different camera angles. Then if they want I do a rendering of it on final. I don't do a ton of the renderings but it is fun to play with. I still need some practice to make them really good IMO.
(http://www.theswamp.org/screens/Maverick/Wessel%203d.jpg)
-
Kinda strange but I do all my structural analysis in 3-D but prepare all my drawings in 2-D.
-
Maverick,
That looks really nice. I can see that being very useful when presenting plans to homeowners.
-
Kerry, your dwg. http://www.theswamp.org/forum/index.php?topic=8873.new#new would be a good example for me of having to do it in 3d. The 2d is going to take just as long and there's a good chance something will be drawn not quite right. If we were making it as a prop, it would be mostly ply or mdf w/ some steel ribs, so each flat face wood be CNCed, which is basically grabbing the 3d faces, easier to do than create it from a 2d dwg. I'm also seeing that drawing as a prototype where a library isn't going to help you much, so the new 3d cad will come into its own on this one. Just wondering if the structural side will get quite the same gain.( I have heard some large companies are still on acad14 and some bosses take a bit of arm bending to fork out the extra dough.)
-
Thanks Troy. In all honesty I think it's pretty amateurish compared with others I've seen done with the software I use. Of course it's in the amount of time you get to play with it. :-)
The customers do love it though. I've seen some where the designer will take a digital pic of the site from a good angle, then use that as the background for the rendering so they can somewhat see what it will look like on site. Customers would flip over that. Especially if they are not real good at visualizing.
I can generate 3d framing layouts etc. from the model but never have. The crews better know how to frame a house by now.
-
We are Doing 3D modeling with those 3D models gets processed for 2D drawing all mechanical. If you do 3D models do you really need 2D drawings?
As a steel detailer yesssssss you need 2d drawings how else are thw workshop going to make the parts to assemble a model
3D is a great presentation tool but it can also help in clash detection and if a assembly is going to fit together and for me its
just a lot more fun
-
I'm with Tom on this one, especially for detailing. While you can produce CNC output for beam lines etc. you still need details for assembly and welding.
While with std Acad it can be a bit of hard work in 3d there is a lot more comfort in seeing a building all bolted together without clashes ;)
Having said that, in all reality though with the current product we have to use (Vanilla Acad is just a drawing tool, not an iformation modeller like some of the verticals) a lot of the work can be done quicker in 2d, especially with simple 2d 'like' structures like trestles and simple portal frames. The only way around this is customisation/add-ons which most in the detailing industry in 3d would probably have.
-
I do believe there is still a place for 2D drawings in the workplace.
But in the near future as technolog advances and software catches up no more 2D drawings One can put the dimensions directly on the 3D model with tolerances and GD&T and such. This is called 3D annotation. There is even an ASME standard on the practices and the proper way of doing this. There is many advantages of this and at the current time and there is many issues with this.
Biggest Problem is when I create this 3D annotation on my 3D model the person who wants to look at this model will have to have the same software as I do. I can translate it out with the annotation but The software the translated file is getting imported to will not be able to read this 3D annotation. So back to 2D drawing.
Our drawings on our big castings and very complex models are not fully dimensioned. We only dimension critical features and let the other features float per a profile tolerance on the print.
We do mechanical designs. I do not know much about the civil and building and house side of things.
Thanks
-
< .. >
Our drawings on our big castings and very complex models are not fully dimensioned. We only dimension critical features and let the other features float per a profile tolerance on the print.
< .. >
Shane, I've done a bit of work in the past for castings and did the same thing. Used the Model for Presentation Visualisation and Mass calcs etc then just cut sections and solprofs for the "Design Manufacturing" drawings .. along with some ISO views as required.
-
3D almost exclusively for about 4 years. Mechanical/structural....lots of piping etc......... Going to 3D cut shop time by 20%.........rework due to mis-alignment etc...has virtually disappeared. The shop now can pre-fab pipe runs that used to have to wait for equipment lead times........the guys love it. Tried to do some 2D work for a guy a couple months back.........was this ol' ba'ar LOST! finally knocked it out in 3D and solprof'd the darned thing....he thought that was the best 2D he'd seen ....never tol' him dif'rent............
-
Kerry, what sucks is that I used to teach 3D at college, but no-one round here wants to use it. :realmad:
Im in the same boat! Then they ask for it, and Im the only one that can do it, so i suggest a class, BUT we have mo time, just get it done.
-
just for my own sanity, let's clarify something. when you guys talk about "2d drawings" do you mean that after you build the 3d model you use something (like sol????) to "step" on it and make it 2d for drawing purposes?
Or do you, lke me, use dview sliced views in layouts to produce 2d drawings of the 3d model?
-
3D almost exclusively for about 4 years. Mechanical/structural....lots of piping etc......... Going to 3D cut shop time by 20%.........rework due to mis-alignment etc...has virtually disappeared. The shop now can pre-fab pipe runs that used to have to wait for equipment lead times........the guys love it. Tried to do some 2D work for a guy a couple months back.........was this ol' ba'ar LOST! finally knocked it out in 3D and solprof'd the darned thing....he thought that was the best 2D he'd seen ....never tol' him dif'rent............
I'm with t-bear on this. I drew on the board and in ACAD for some time in 2d. It wasn't until I got into 3d on a regular basis about 7 or so years ago that I really saw a decline in my error rate when it came to the alignement and relations ships of parts in products. I always get these comments asking how I can visualize some of the things I draw and the answer is always the same. I don't draw it, I build virtually. This allows me to see where the problems to used to routinely crop up. It has also helped me when dealing with designers and showing them why something won't work out quite the way they think it's going to. As the software improves, more and more of my work is being done exclusively 3d.
-
Hi Randy,
For me, both { or either } of those.
.. also use a couple of commercial packages, plus "stuff" of our own.
For Shop Detailing, as you MAY know, our local details are <say> 1:10 , which for an A1 sheet < with a 790mm border> extends anything longer than about 7000 < 7M or about 22' > past the border edge .. usefull as teats on a stool.
... So, The drawn length MAY have to be reduced while retaining linear dimensional accuracy.
... So, We can't detail off solids most of the time.
-
With the HL settings in 2004+ I've been using sliced views for layouts and sections and for detailing I've used both solprof and soldraw but now I use a different template set up for hidden lines styles. The only prob's with these features is that a lot of clients don't understand layouts/paperspace as they only use Acad for plotting.
IRT long members I use matchlines and stagger the member on the page or continue it onto another border beside the first. If I have more time I'll create a few viewports and line them up as if the member was 'broken' to fit it on the page.
-
Some of these days.... I will like to quit AutoCAD and move into a 3D software... to bad the type of work we do and the design(s) do not allow as to spent as much I would loved into the 3D world...
-
I know I'm probably asking for it by posing this question...
...what's wrong with AutoCAD's 3d? Is was good enough for programming the Battle scene at Helm's Deep and as I recall it was also used for sequences in the new King Kong (Discreet).
-
Don't know if the above reply was for my previous one... I am referring of stop using the 2D stuff.... :-)
-
I know I'm probably asking for it by posing this question...
...what's wrong with AutoCAD's 3d? Is was good enough for programming the Battle scene at Helm's Deep and as I recall it was also used for sequences in the new King Kong (Discreet).
There isn't so much wrong with the 3d modelling itself, it's the lack of information that could be stored with the objects. The 3d objects produced in vanilla are simple volumetric objects and have no 'direction' or other smarts that would be very useful for BOM's and other information mining of the model.
2d representation of 3d objects is also 'clunky' compared to other systems. Paperspace, while a sound concept seems like a work around rather than a good system to produce 2d details. This is actually pretty easy to do with the OpenGL/DirectX api's for the hidden line details, a double pass with the z buffer for each line type can calculate which lines would be visible or not and then project them to 2d. These calculations are performed with the graphics api and not by AutoCAD (or the Acis modelling kernel) and would be a lot quicker.
With the new modelling engine this may change though, I can't wait to see :)
-
There isn't so much wrong with the 3d modelling itself, it's the lack of information that could be stored with the objects. The 3d objects produced in vanilla are simple volumetric objects and have no 'direction' or other smarts that would be very useful for BOM's and other information mining of the model.
2d representation of 3d objects is also 'clunky' compared to other systems. Paperspace, while a sound concept seems like a work around rather than a good system to produce 2d details. This is actually pretty easy to do with the OpenGL/DirectX api's for the hidden line details, a double pass with the z buffer for each line type can calculate which lines would be visible or not and then project them to 2d. These calculations are performed with the graphics api and not by AutoCAD (or the Acis modelling kernel) and would be a lot quicker.
With the new modelling engine this may change though, I can't wait to see :)
I dunno... I kind of like the approach they took. It actually makes sense to me. You create two separate spaces. One that allows you to freely model. One that allows you to make documentation for the model. The only real issues I have are that you are unable to get the *ahem* associative *cough* dimensioning to work accurately. It's getting better with every release. There are also still some issues with the hidden lines function not displaying things correctly. I personally think it's a rounding problem that causes it but I can't be certain. My programming skills aren't solid enough to say definitely one way or the other. That and the render er still hides stuff even if the layers in front of the object are frozen or off. Clipping planes do a similar thing in the 2k2 and prior. Wasn't on 2k4 long enough to find out and I haven't need them enough to experience it with 2k5.
As far as storing materials information, I've been doing that for years with XData. I've even recall several years ago, back in R14, someone set up a wind shear model to test the structural integrity of a steel tower. Looked really cool when it was running because he animated what shape the tower would take under different gusts.
-
Don't know if the above reply was for my previous one... I am referring of stop using the 2D stuff.... :-)
Yes sir it was. I just took it different than you meant it. It's just a perception thing.
-
You create two separate spaces. One that allows you to freely model. One that allows you to make documentation for the model.
The only problem with this approach is if your 3D model is complex and large you end up with a huge dwg file
-
You create two separate spaces. One that allows you to freely model. One that allows you to make documentation for the model.
The only problem with this approach is if your 3D model is complex and large you end up with a huge dwg file
That depends. What do you consider huge?
-
In regards to pspace, it's ok for viewing models as a layout but if you have to do workshop details of a particular item that requires more than one view and possibly sections you really have to work hard to produce them (compared to mechanical app's such as SolidWorks) and need to be created in seperate files.
The age of BIM is 'almost' here and while it may not be addequate (i.e. accurate) to take detailing info straight from the model produced by consultants to convey design intent, it would be good if you could grab something from them and be able to produce 2d views in intuative manner. I guess that's why we have to buy verticals and add-ons as it's not the intent of vanilla AutoCAD??
In my particular industry (structural steel detailing) there is little out there 'on the shelf' to use, app's like solid works, alibre and even Inventor are very good but have too many constraints and options for this type of work but do a fine job of 2d drawing of assemblies and parts. We need something in the middle I guess :)
-
I use a 3rd party app that does exactly what you're speaking of in 3d. I produce full working models of the products we build and generate details as necessary on the fly. They, like AutoDesk have a lot of Beta type stuff slipping through to Gamma but all in all, the software has come a long way in the last two years. Check this out (http://www.microvellum.com/). It's what I work with all day. For the super complex stuff it's still faster to do it old school. Like I said though, it's getting better every year.
-
Thanks for the link JAY, looks interesting :)
-
Jim,
This may give you an idea of scope and the issues facing shop detailers particularly.
This job is a simple little machinery suppurt sub-floor with support columns.
This portion of the project required 98 drawings.
The Model, 2D Floor plan and one detail drawing are attached.
Due to time constraints, ( which are TYPICAL in our industry ) this portion of the project could not be modeled and detailed in one Drawing.
Essentially the model (while still being worked on) was shared between detailers, each producing stand alone detail drawings.
This scenario is more normal than not.
-
So your telling me that in an Industry that's as regulated as yours is that no one has devloped an App yet that can allow you to "build" it and pull your machining data, BOM and documentation drawings from it yet? :?
I thought woodworker's were the only ones getting left behind on that bus.
-
So your telling me that in an Industry that's as regulated as yours is that no one has devloped an App yet that can allow you to "build" it and pull your machining data, BOM and documentation drawings from it yet? :?
I thought woodworker's were the only ones getting left behind on that bus.
There are plenty of 'add-ons' but they all vary in how they work and nearly all lack something that you need sooner or later. And then there's the cost of some of these!. Another problem with these app's is that when you do strike trouble you're left to deal with it in standard AutoCAD, that's ok but defeats the purpose, you lose all the smarts that your app is supposed to provide and you're left with 'holes' in your information. Then there's the bugs...
-
eeewwww... bugs.
Yeah, we get a fair bit of those with the apps available for us as well. I just keep pushing the wagon along when the mule won't pull it up the hill during the really custom stuff. Fortunately, this new stuff that MV has is coming along quickly enough that by the end of next year, I'll be able to run 90-95% of my products through it with a minimum of fuss. At least until some designer comes up with another $20 mil. project that is all compound radius work again. then I'll be needing to fall back on the old school again.
I keep dreaming though. Hang in there Mick.
-
< .. snip .. > Then there's the bugs...
and the differing standards in each country,
and the vagaries of architects ,
and the inconsistancy of engineers regarding connection design,
and the specific requirements of individual fabricators,
etc, etc.
-
I know I'm probably asking for it by posing this question...
...what's wrong with AutoCAD's 3d? Is was good enough for programming the Battle scene at Helm's Deep and as I recall it was also used for sequences in the new King Kong (Discreet).
AutoCAD is obsolete technology for anyone serious about 3D(virtual)-2D-3D(real world) round trip art-to-part.
http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/CAD238/AutoCAD_2007_Tutorials.htm
-
But are those other solutions as pliable?
-
What is the best package to produce a 100% set of CD drawings for an architectural project?
- Anyone here, have gone or done it from a full 3D package?
- What level of detail?
Thanks.
-
AutoCAD is obsolete technology for anyone serious about 3D(virtual)-2D-3D(real world) round trip art-to-part.
Gee, I'm sure glad I didn't know that before I started doing so 5-6 years ago.
-
(http://www.theswamp.org/lilly_pond/cadaver/plant-01.jpg)
-
Nice very nice. But when I look at this I see alot of circles squares routed in 3D Very nice for autocad
But how long did it take you to do this? Maybe in a true 3D package this would have taken half the time. Assuming proficiency in the 3D software.
Also how do you export this file out for other people to view? If the person does not have autocad how do they view this fie?
-
Ahhh Shane....you stuck your foot in it now... LOL
Tell me, in "the other" packages, how do you create a cylinder? With a circle, right? Same with any other geometric shape. I've used Inventor, and played with Solid works. To do a piping iso you still need to start with circles and lines.............
I doubt that your estimate of half the time would stand up either. If you are VERY good, you might beat me, but not by much. And by the time you get through constraining all those circles and squares, I'll be done. About the only place the parametrics will be faster is in 3D to 2D sheet conversion, and while they are FASTER, the ability to create some views/details is limited.
Remember, this is just one old mans opinion...........LOL
-
Nice very nice. But when I look at this I see alot of circles squares routed in 3D Very nice for autocad
thanks, that's about half the model data, and if you're only seeing circles and squares you not looking close. Of course you can't see the embedded data either that allows us to do material control, iso generation, and piece tracking.
But how long did it take you to do this? Maybe in a true 3D package this would have taken half the time. Assuming proficiency in the 3D software.
Could be, but our competitors are using so called "TRUE 3D" packages and are constatntly losing their bids to us. They're laying off while we're hiring, so I don't think they are any faster than we are.
Also how do you export this file out for other people to view? If the person does not have autocad how do they view this fie?
Probably the same way you would with a "TRUE 3D" package (whatever that is). Right now we're supplying the finished models (along with the drawings) to the client at completion. During the design/construction phases we use PDF's and DWF's to share drawing data with the rest of the contractors. Been working pretty well that way for several years.
-
I use I-Deas 3D modeling package from UGS
We do mechanical stuff like Die castings and gears Powder metal and lost foam die castings
"Tell me, in "the other" packages, how do you create a cylinder?"
It has how you get to 3D cylinder and put the tapers or the Helix the cylinder is rotating or folowing.
Yes a cylinder is a cylinder. One can extrude, sweep, "loft" variational sweep and or revolve.
"I doubt that your estimate of half the time would stand up either."
I disagree. Maybe the first initial start up and the first start of the design but once changes start coming in and modifications start happening the big 3D packages Put Autocad to shame. There is a feature called a history tree how people build these parts. This keeps track of all the extrudes and revolves and what not it takes to make a part. This is the most effective way to change, modify, move and constrain per your design intent. In assembly mode one can constain parts to each other so if you make a part shorter all of the other parts will move with it. My favorite argument is if you move something .5 of an inch you have to modify or move all your piping. In big 3D packages this can all be automated.
"About the only place the parametrics will be faster is in 3D to 2D sheet conversion, and while they are FASTER, the ability to create some views/details is limited.
Remember, this is just one old mans opinion...........LOL"
In our 3D software we can make any cross section views detail views or what ever you want.
In big packages one can share data between "real" 3D systems (LOL) with formats like STEP IGES JT
CADaver
How often do you change this model or drawing after you are done with it?
How much of this model can be used for other projects?
Can you use like a common coupling or screw and move it where you want it? Move it from project to project?
Like the beams do you draw the new beam every time if the length changes? Or is a modification from the first beam you did?
Are all new projects a new clean blank screen start?
Also how do you do your analysis on your 3D models? HOw do you know your design is strong enough FEA? HOw do you know your Flows are what they should be CFD?
With 3D packages you can do this type of analysis! Autocad you just model it in 3D and hope it is strong enough and hope the fluid flow how it should.?
Final comment I guess you can not teach an old dog new tricks. LOL J/K
-
In our 3D software we can make any cross section views detail views or what ever you want.
we do the same in plain ol' AutoCAD
How often do you change this model or drawing after you are done with it?
hourly, daily, minute by minute. These things aren't "done" til' oil becomes gasoline. What you're seeing in that model is a dozen different XREF's
How much of this model can be used for other projects?
whatever isn't proprietary. The entire assembly is a one-off custom facility, however the individual components are basic models.
Can you use like a common coupling or screw and move it where you want it? Move it from project to project?
certainly
Like the beams do you draw the new beam every time if the length changes? Or is a modification from the first beam you did?
a couple of lisp function to modify the xscale, or translate the part/assembly change the member shape or whatever. But even without the customization, there's never a need to rebuild the beam from scratch unless the member size changes.
Are all new projects a new clean blank screen start?
mostly, but entry for most assemblies is parametric. tell it how many bents of rack at how many levels and member sizes and spacings and it's built. Or input the FEA data output from RISA, and it builds itself.
Also how do you do your analysis on your 3D models? How do you know your design is strong enough FEA? How do you know your Flows are what they should be CFD?
FEA is RISA, Process is Caesar, E&I is INtools.
Autocad you just model it in 3D and hope it is strong enough and hope the fluid flow how it should.?
only if you don't know how to do it right.
Final comment I guess you can not teach an old dog new tricks.
oh i can pick up a lot of new tricks, I lust have no need to drop a bundle on new software to do it.
Those who say it can't be done are a constant source of amusement to those of us doing it anyway.
-
Well put CADaver. Especially that last line. I've been dealing for years with nay sayers in the 3d realm. While AutoCAD isn't the most simplified or pefect CAD to work in 3d. It is by far the most customizable, flexible and open. I cannot find a packeage that allows me to use the many different types of data sources that I do to pull my information together, use the drawing file itself as a databse when the info is stored with the model parts and still customize the package to fit what ever job I am doing or what ever company I am doing the work for and still share that data without spending 50-100,000 dollars a seat. My CAD installation cost a few grand and the engineering software I use, while basic because I am not in the same type of engineering fields as most of you, cost about a bit over 10k for a seat. At 5 seats we get an open license to have as amany installs as we want. So please. Unless your yet another mathemetician trying tout that his own version of modeling software that can hold a candle to the big picture that the evil empire of AutoDesk has brought us all to, bust loose with some real meat and/or a link to a better alternative. Don't offer us 'candy' and then try to pull us into the van.
-
Here's a thought ...
How about some of the members who haven't posted < much or at all > have a vote and post a comment.
It would be good to hear from you. ... really !
< ... >
anyone ? ?
-
OK, I will elaborate a bit on my earlier post. My work is almost exclusively the surveying, platting and construction plans for residential subdivisions. As such, I have no application for true 3d, even in the slightly misnamed Civil 3D except for the one in umpteen years project sign I described previously. Although Civil 3D does create an actual 3D model as opposed to the 3d face produced by previous offerings, this model is not only warped usually by a factor of 5 or 10, it is also never really shown in any documents except as a top plan view. It would be possible to render it for an attractive part of a cover sheet but there is seldom room for such or excess budget for that matter. A true sectional view of the model would not be appropriate because of the meandering course of the portrayed utilities or roadway as the exact horizontal lengths must be maintained. We are therefore left with using a 2D representation of the model rather than a true 3d view of our profiles and cross sections that are actually the vertical calculations for the design surface and utilities.
-
Good answers Cadaver
A couple more questions if you do not mind.
How often do you touch this model once you are finished with it?
The parts you model are they standard parts? tubing, C channels I-Beams, ECT.
After each time you change the Autocad model do you have to reload and re mesh your model back into your FEA package? Or do you only do it once?
I do not know anything about Risea so I do not know how it interacts with Autocad.
"oh i can pick up a lot of new tricks, I lust have no need to drop a bundle on new software to do it.
Those who say it can't be done are a constant source of amusement to those of us doing it anyway."
I never said it could not be done. I think there is software out there that is quicker and better for modeling 3D than Autocad. What you are doing works for you. I am happy for you. There is alot of software out there that is expensive and cheap. You have to make the best of what you can afford and what your final output is. I would like to post a 3D model of what I do but I can not. Sorry
Thanks for all the feed back
Good information
This is why this place is the best forum I have ever been to.
-
Just found this post cause I'm not interested.
I was just at a training session yesterday for a program called SketchUp.
Nice program and should help my company with presentation drawings. It should be fun becoming proficient on 2 systems.
Anyone else hear of SketchUp?
-
Over 10 years ago, I was doing 3D in r12 for DOS with the AME modeling package. I drew a go-cart for my final drawing for my 3D class. Everything I drew from the engine, rims, wheels, steering wheel, frame, seat etc...
I had a guy come up to me and say "I can't draw a 3D spiral (think corn auger). I said it's easy and a few minutes later I rendered an image for him.
I then worked for a weather protection/enviromental containment company and drew entirely in 2D/3D. Basically whatever we had to cover, I would create a 3D model and then enclose it with our system.
But we also had to detail out the farbic and that was done in 2D.
It was a mix of both worlds and it worked very well.
Pieter
-
sketchup is a neat program. You may want to keep your eyes out for Vespa (I think that is how it is spelt).
That is the code name for the software that AutoDesk will be releasing at some point and it is very much like sketchup.
Pieter
-
sketchup is a neat program. You may want to keep your eyes out for Vespa (I think that is how it is spelt).
That is the code name for the software that AutoDesk will be releasing at some point and it is very much like sketchup.
Pieter
I don't use AutoCAD and if its from AutoDesk the program will probably cost somewhere in the line of $3k per seat.
-
Greg;
I have SketchUP... I have done just one 3D and after that, have not even been able to download the latest release....
In the new release images I have seen of a2007, they appear to implement some features that sketchup has....
I have not being able to play anymore :-(
I will try to upload an image showing the 3D and rendering....
-
SDETERS, com'on man... I wanna know what software you were referring to. I am eager to check it out. If my sarcasm cut earlier I apologize but I'd REALLY like to see something that is better. Really, really.
-
We use autocad for legacy 2D data only
I do not know how to post an image like Cadaver did.
We use I-Deas it has 3D modeling, Assembly, 2D drafting, mechanism design and all kinds of CAE CAM plus FEA. But it is going to be come obsolete in a few years and merge with Unigraphics.
Expensive software yes! We create our own parts. We take our 3D models and have Prototypes and production tooling for aluminum die castings cut from these models. Great software for our needs.
Does everyone need this software no. You have to choose what you want to do in 3D and choose the correct way to go.
This image is not as nice as Cadaver had but it is ok
This is a sheet metail part. All Walls are of uniform thickness per sheet metall standards. Check it out Please
http://www.theswamp.org/screens/images/3D_IMAGE.JPG
-
Very nice piece of work. I use a software that is the woodworkers equivalent of BIM (http://www.microvellum.com/Products.aspx). The installation at my current place of work was not done very well by my predecessor (after I complete the project I'm on I've been tasked with replacing it with a functioning installation) but here's a combination of 3d and the products that are working with the BIM type software. The white are the Products. Completely parametric in almost every way. I can call them into any job as needed. This was why I asked about ACAD being obsolete.
-
So does the top really get built through the wall like that?
-
So does the top really get built through the wall like that?
;) By design it's supposed to look like it does, but no it is actually a bit of value engineering that makes it look so while being more cost effective. Especially at $100 s.f. for material.
-
Nice!
-
How often do you touch this model once you are finished with it?
Sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. We have clients that use us to keep their models up-to-date, in that case we revise them whenever the need arises. Other clients prefer to maintain their own files, in which case we may never see the files again. During the project cycle (2 months to 2 years) we manipulate the models everyday.
The parts you model are they standard parts? tubing, C channels I-Beams, ECT.
Those are "standard" shapes, but we build them parametrically when needed. We don't keep a library of standard "blocks" for those elements.
After each time you change the Autocad model do you have to reload and re mesh your model back into your FEA package? Or do you only do it once?
Usually we do a very preliminary FEA model for preliminary sizing. The, due to the rapid development of the design phase, we use the CAD model to track changes as they occur and reserve a final run for later in the project. At that time we have the software re-create the FEA model.
I never said it could not be done. I think there is software out there that is quicker and better for modeling 3D than Autocad.
not for the price, availability, compatibility, flexibility and user base.
With over 300 users, cost is a real concern. A difference of just a few hundred dollars per seat becomes a major capital expenditure very fast.
Our product is based on the most popular (right or wrong) CAD software on the market, and as such is vastly more compatible with a wider range of contractors and clients.
Even the smallest local college offers classes in AutoCAD. When we had need of additional operators, it is MUCH easier to fill that need than if we were using a different software.
As for quicker, I can only say that the only competitor we had in this area that used I-Dea could not produce the desired results in the time frame required. After several years of attempting to keep p, they finally folded up their tents and moved on. Their problem may have been lack of experience with the software or poor training or the cost of the software limited they user base, I don't know. About a dozen of the guys that worked for them came to work for us, and after some re-training have worked out quite nicely.
-
"can only say that the only competitor we had in this area that used I-Deas could not produce the desired results in the time frame required"
Cmon you and I know that the software is not the only thing that makes or breaks a company. I do not care what kind of drafting or modeling packages one uses it does not break or make the company. :angel:
Like I said we do alot of die castings. Many boolean operation like cut subtract, joins adds, loft, Sweeps, Variational Sweeps and such. If you can show me that autocad is up to par with the rest of the high end 3D packages in 3D filleting I will be very impressed. THis is where I spend alot of my time when basic shape of the part is complete. 3D filleting is a nightmare.
"With over 300 users, cost is a real concern. A difference of just a few hundred dollars per seat becomes a major capital expenditure very fast."
Yes that is why you use Autocad. IT works for your needs. We have about couple dozen users
"Even the smallest local college offers classes in AutoCAD. When we had need of additional operators, it is MUCH easier to fill that need than if we were using a different software."
This is where we struggle. We have to send out most any new designer we get. So we hire them then send them off to class for a week. Which once they come back and model for about a year then they leave. Then the process starts all over. So they do Autocad work for the first month and then 3D modifications and small models after that. Most people that come in here knows PRO-E. So we have to re teach. :realmad:
-
what's the use of perametrics when half of people using it don't know how to use it. I LOVEthe ease of creating features in CATIA and UG, but when you get someone elses model that you have to modify....sometimes you might as well turn it dumb and start from scratch.
Right now i use CADKey and even tho i get pissed at it from time to time, it sure surves it's purpose. I remember typing things in the comand line (autocad) back in highschool, and even though i got puirty fast at it it can't beat my short cut keys E ->line, T->TRIM, X-> ROTATE.....(and tons more). With one hand on the mouse and the other on the left side of keyboard, drawing becomes a breeze (even in 3d)
https://www.kubotekusa.com/products/demos/
-
SketchUP has been Googled...
Google aquired @lastsoftware
http://www.sketchup.com/index.php?id=1439
-
Cool even without sound. (http://download.sketchup.com/downloads/training/tutorials50/movies/Mkt_B5-watch_me_first.html)
-
That was very cool. So you say it was swallowed up by Google? That would explain the similarity I saw between the 3d city scape in the demo and the 3d buildings when you select that option with Google Earth. Combining Keyhole with Sketch-up doesn't seem to be a huge stretch but makes good business sense for that type of application. Just my assertion from observation though.
-
Just read that on another forum. I wonder what that means for the future of 3D.
I've never used it. I have seen what it can do and some examples and it looks cool.
Doh, the video is cool. I've been spending time learning Revit. This looks easier to use. If the details can really be generated like that, it'll be cool. It's about $495 thereabouts? Better than 4 grand.
Anybody use it?
-
I had a shiver run up my spine when I heard "translate directly to design drawings"
Looks like a great concept tool !. nice link MP.
-
It is actually a very cool tool, BUT when you do not simple designs things are not going WELL per see...
I have version 3.0 and have not upgrade to 5.0 yet.... I downloaded the demo and run it on my PC and the same it FREEZE the PC, the same it does on V3....
Apart of that, you can do nice conceptual sketches.... like this one:
And the same I begin on Revit 8.1, and actually the same, you have to wait every time you open your project, and they even show to you a message about it....
I have very up-to-date PC's... so the memory or video or whatever is not an issue....
Regards,
Luis.
Correction: now I am adding just small portions of the whole 3D object.
-
I had a play with SketchUp a year or so a go and it was a hoot to play with. This is an affordable tool that would be indespensible in an Architect/Design office for fleshing out designs very quickly for the client for concept approval. May have to have another look myself ;)
-
LE,
Cool designs.
Nice work. You did that with sketch up?
Buggy software makes you crash? Would be nice if it could do all they show and be stable.
-
I agree. At 495, as a quick conceptual tool to test ideas, it would be great.
The test would be to see if you could translate the stuff over to AutoCAD with reasonable accuracy.
-
Cool designs.
Nice work. You did that with sketch up?
Buggy software makes you crash? Would be nice if it could do all they show and be stable.
Yes Glee, thanks.
I am an Architect.... and have to do design work on my day job....
It takes for ever to generate all the different options [when you have a complex project].... if you do simple things it is just good as they show in the cool demo of them, that's simple....
-
Maybe with google throwing their weight behind it, the software will get less buggy?
Wonder if the cost will skyrocket too.
I'm always looking for a reasonably good stable proggy to do both simple and complex conceptual designs on, that can then be used to develop production drawings from. Reason why I've been playing with Revit.
Revit is nice but not that quick to figure out.
-
I had a play with SketchUp a year or so a go and it was a hoot to play with. This is an affordable tool that would be indespensible in an Architect/Design office for fleshing out designs very quickly for the client for concept approval. May have to have another look myself ;)
You hit the nail on the head here. It's main function is for presenation of drawings. Ok maybe that is what the main function for us is. What it can't do is material takeoffs, but for how quick you can put together a presentation and sell a job, that is fine and dandy.
As for it being buggy. I have a clean install on my computer (trail version still) and I have had no problems. Basically I have a full version with a timer.
Being bought by google means a couple things.
1. Google can pour more money into it so they can get the integration with google earth a lot better.
2. Google will pour more money into development. I know there are a lot of areas that need improving, but SketchUP 5 is a pretty well rounded and complete package.
-
3D at work consists of:
AutoCAD solid models and, more often,
ProE to design mechanical parts.
Personal interest in 3D consists of:
3D modeling of land contours, buildings, construction details,
for that AutoCAD 2004 and 3dStudiomax 5 are on hand.
-
These are school projects drawn in autocad 2004. (The Gantvoort residence by John Lautner) the rendered image was done with studiomax, the axonometric is autocad.
And Greg, your move.
-
Yes (as often as I can get away with) mainly for the UK water industry.
Unfortunately persuading Engineers seems to be the biggest hurdle to overcome, sadly responses such as "we don't want any of that fancy gaming stuff on our projects" is all too familiar.
Ironically, it usually takes a just single 3D project to convince them.
-
"can only say that the only competitor we had in this area that used I-Deas could not produce the desired results in the time frame required"
Cmon you and I know that the software is not the only thing that makes or breaks a company. I do not care what kind of drafting or modeling packages one uses it does not break or make the company.
True, however that was my only experience in competition with I-Deas users. They failed... miserably.
Like I said we do alot of die castings. Many boolean operation like cut subtract, joins adds, loft, Sweeps, Variational Sweeps and such. If you can show me that autocad is up to par with the rest of the high end 3D packages in 3D filleting I will be very impressed. THis is where I spend alot of my time when basic shape of the part is complete. 3D filleting is a nightmare.
Autocad has serious trouble with variable sweeps and lofts, but that hardly discounts it as a "REAL" 3D tool, now does it?
-
If you have some SHADEMODE commands in your code, the options have changed.
-
Cadaver does not like me much :-( J/K
"Autocad has serious trouble with variable sweeps and lofts, but that hardly discounts it as a "REAL" 3D tool, now does it?"
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner LOL. I agree Autocad can be used as a limited 3D tool. Limited being by one or two simple shapes added sbutracted from each other or what have ya. Then put into a assembly drawing or what ever. One can not model 3D in autocad and get the same shapes, surfaces and complex parts one gets with high end 3D modeling packages. I think this is what inventor is for? Our models consists of 500-1000 features joind and or cut or sweep together and then we fillet them out. All of these features are kept in order with a history tree. This how we created our models. This is where Autocad lacks ability. I can go in the history tree add, remove,reorder, and modify features. In autocad how do you add and or modify features after they are already made? Then not change anything else after that feature and get back to the end of the part? I like your comments but Autocad being a real 3D tool I think it should read Autocad is a real 3D tool with limits The price is right for what you are getting. Autocad works for you. It would never work for us. That is why there is different packages out there for different companies. Non of them are perfect. I praise our 3D software somedays and curse at others. At the end of the day one has to define what you are going to do with the software and what type of product are you going to design. If you design pipes basics steel shapes Autocad works great. If you are desinging complicated parts with complicated surfaces with lofts, sweeps and surfacing and then one will need a higher end 3D modleing package.
-
Cadaver does not like me much :-( J/K
I like you as much as I like anyone....
I like your comments but Autocad being a real 3D tool I think it should read Autocad is a real 3D tool with limits
ALL of them are limited, just in different places. I have no need for sweeps and lofts, therefore AutoCAD is not limited for me at all. In fact, for us the other packages are extremely limited because that haven't the extended user base of AutoCAD, and limited yet again by the ridiculous cost.
Again, "Those who say it can't be done are a constant source of amusement to those of us doing it anyway".
-
Are you guys going to start comparing the size of your mousepads soon?
Agree to disagree already. :roll:
-
My mouse pad will always be bigger :lol:
Ha ha
I agree Cadaver
Simply put you need to have the correct 3D software for the product you are producing. Sounds like Autocad is the solution for you and your company for your 3D needs. But companies and individuals need to know the limits, cons and pros for all the software that is out there. There is not a 3D software out there that does it all.
Thanks for the good comments and I hope other people will find this information value added.
-
SDETERS.....I'm in the same "type" of industry as Randy....mostly piping and structural steel. For us, the "high end" cad proggys are a waste of money. We have no need for sweeps and lofts in our industry...although 2K7 is supposed to be able to do both (true or false guys?).....I haven't seen 2k7 yet. I know they were playing with it................ So you see, the "best" CAD 3D package is determined by its end use. different strokes for different folks.
....and yes, this has been a very interesting and informative thread...Thank you all....good stuff. :-D :-D :-D
-
SDETERS.....I'm in the same "type" of industry as Randy....mostly piping and structural steel. For us, the "high end" cad proggys are a waste of money. We have no need for sweeps and lofts in our industry...although 2K7 is supposed to be able to do both (true or false guys?).....I haven't seen 2k7 yet. I know they were playing with it................ So you see, the "best" CAD 3D package is determined by its end use. different strokes for different folks.
....and yes, this has been a very interesting and informative thread...Thank you all....good stuff. :-D :-D :-D
My ability to use the tools you mentioned is limited. I have yet to find a situation where they havent worked in 2k7 though.
-
Thanks JAY...now all I have to do is convince these stubborn, hammer-headed ....Grrrrr! that we can work smarter instead of longer/harder by updating...still in 2K4................ :|
-
Thanks JAY...now all I have to do is convince these stubborn, hammer-headed ....Grrrrr! that we can work smarter instead of longer/harder by updating...still in 2K4................ :|
Lucky you, I'm still stuck on a project using 2K2.
-
I heard the very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just as we will smirk at the AutoCAD die-hards in a few years. (My current students already do, they ask, "Why did we have to learn AutoCAD the freshman year?", after learning Inventor and SolidWorks.)
As a full-blown cad user that desires a much more robust 3D CAD, I would rather that ADESK NOT dilute their efforts by branching out with yet another "crippled" product like AutoCAD 2007. I would prefer that they focus on the Inventor giving us the future now.
"Don't equate the 3D in AutoCAD (which is not nearly as powerful ) with the 3D capabilities of a solid modeling program like Autodesk Inventor", Lynn Allen http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/cadalyst0306adsup/index.php
AutoCAD 2007 has added some new solids tools to help ease the fear of moving to new technology that will eventually replace it. http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/CAD238/AutoCAD_2007_Tutorials.htm
-
Instead of stealing and butchering quotes from another forum, try original thought.
Currently Inventor does nothing that we can use. NOTHING. It's only more expensive and will require considerable customization to get where we are now with AutoCAD, and as yet it hasn't a decent user pool from which to draw users. NONE of the current rash of "real" 3D tools can do what we need. Instead of branching out into single-discipline specific tools like Inventor, Adesk should focus on it's flagship product and port those few useful tools from Revit and Inventor into that, (some of which they've done with 2K7)
Your butchering of the quote about "crippled" software was grossly misplaced in this thread. The forum thread from which you pilferred the quote was discussing LT and the desire for a 2D only AutoCAD.
-
I heard the very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just as we will smirk at the AutoCAD die-hards in a few years. (My current students already do, they ask, "Why did we have to learn AutoCAD the freshman year?", after learning Inventor and SolidWorks.)
As a full-blown cad user that desires a much more robust 3D CAD, I would rather that ADESK NOT dilute their efforts by branching out with yet another "crippled" product like AutoCAD 2007. I would prefer that they focus on the Inventor giving us the future now.
"Don't equate the 3D in AutoCAD (which is not nearly as powerful ) with the 3D capabilities of a solid modeling program like Autodesk Inventor", Lynn Allen http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/cadalyst0306adsup/index.php
AutoCAD 2007 has added some new solids tools to help ease the fear of moving to new technology that will eventually replace it. http://home.pct.edu/~jmather/content/CAD238/AutoCAD_2007_Tutorials.htm
You do realize that by comparing Vanilla with inventor you're comparing a Kia with Lamborghini? They are two completely different worlds with two completely different markets. I've seen both of the new versions and I tell you this, you really need to be careful about how you phrase stuff in a public forum Sir. While you may not see it there are two very real things to keep in mind. First, someone is investing in AutoDesk's continuing development of Inventor. While you may not get use from it, someone is. Second is that the new stuff that is explored in Inventor evetually trickles down and becomes more user friendly and sometimes even more robust within AutoCAD. While Inventor is an aquired/expensive taste, AutoCAD is the Vanilla that the world at large can enjoy. Personally I don't like caviar, along with a large number of other folks in this world. They still charge a huge amount for it though because there is still someone who does. I like cheese burgers or pizza with beer. AutoCAD does the trick for me. Besides, if it's such a terrible product, why does it do so well? I know of a good many other CAD programs that cost far less, some of which are LISP compatible and do a fine job of drawing in 2d. A fair number of them even draw in 3d. Shoot, you can even get your own custom tailored program from Mike Riddle himself (http://www.fastcad.com/n-evcomp.shtml) if you want. In my observation, you appear as an elitist with your remarks though. They do nothing more than irritate *some of us*.
*I read this after I posted and realized that my closing statement was inflammitory and discounted the point I was trying to make.*
-
Wow
How much do you have to change all of your 3D or Autocad Customization after each new release? HOw much time do you spend to teach your " new user base" all of your custom menus and lisp and programs or what have ya? If these teaching is over a week or two I think your user base comment does not hold water.
Exactly different strokes different folks. I do agree with. Companies either need the 3D surfacing, filleting and advanced surfacing features or they need to do 1 or 2 simple shapes and put all of them shapes together in the appropriate places.
"I heard the very same about CAD 15 years ago from pencil jockeys who saw no need or use for computer-aided drafting. We kinda smirk at those dinosaurs today, just as we will smirk at the AutoCAD die-hards in a few years. (My current students already do, they ask, "Why did we have to learn AutoCAD the freshman year?", after learning Inventor and SolidWorks.)"
Well Well Well
I do not see Autocad going away or ease the flow into the 2D world. It is an easy and very customizable tool to learn and use. The reason your students need Autocad is because it is different from inventor and solidworks. The question I am going to ask how much GD&T do you teach? How much 2D drafting do you teach? Proper projections? Proper dimensioning? Why is not Autocad taught first? WHy is inventor and solidworks taught first? One needs the basics before they can go to the advanced 3D modeling!!!!!!! How are they going to 3D model something that is pulled out of 1903 just using the hand drawn print? Maybe it is a small change or a new part modified from the old print with some new features.
"You do realize that by comparing Vanilla with inventor you're comparing a Kia with Lamborghini?"
I agree but I think you have your relationships wrong I think Autocad as a Chevy car inventor as Chevy truck and then we have the high end modeling packages Catia I-Deas as Cadillacs. (LOL) What I am trying to say here is that each type of vehicle has it own marketing strategy. They all get you from one place to the next. What type of car do you drive? Do you need the Cadillac with the window ground to your prescription eye glasses or do you need a car that just gets you to one place to another.
-
This particular variation of the original topic has just about been thrashed to death I think ;-)
Despite the relatively few people who voted, the vote count seems to indicate that 3D usage is more prevalent that I had thought.
Thanks to everyone who participated !.
-
How much do you have to change all of your 3D or Autocad Customization after each new release? HOw much time do you spend to teach your " new user base" all of your custom menus and lisp and programs or what have ya? If these teaching is over a week or two I think your user base comment does not hold water.
Until 2K7, it wasn't much trouble at all. But with 2K7 it looks like we may need some serious re-tooling as a lot of the functions we use now are built into the new release.
We have on-going training continuously for all users/designers. We've found that the best way to improve our product is to improve the creators of that product, the designers, so we have formal training sessions every week all the time.
-
Parody - A literary work that imitates the characteristic style of an author for comic effect or ridicule.
Quote - To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
I worked in industry for 15 years, 8 of those out on the shop floor as a journeyman machinist running every manual and CNC machine on the shop. I also taught manual and CNC machine tool classes for 5 years before I began concentrating on CAD. I am very comfortable with the AutoCAD, Inventor and Solidworks experience my students get in the program, both 2D and 3D. I can't claim to belong to the elite group of "original thinkers", but I have more than a passing experience with several CAD programs and have read a bit about the history of technology.
-
Parody - A literary work that imitates the characteristic style of an author for comic effect or ridicule.
Quote - To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
I worked in industry for 15 years, 8 of those out on the shop floor as a journeyman machinist running every manual and CNC machine on the shop. I also taught manual and CNC machine tool classes for 5 years before I began concentrating on CAD. I am very comfortable with the AutoCAD, Inventor and Solidworks experience my students get in the program, both 2D and 3D. I can't claim to belong to the elite group of "original thinkers", but I have more than a passing experience with several CAD programs and have read a bit about the history of technology.
Good, then you should be able to support your positions without the feeble attempts at "parody".
-
Don't see AutoCAD here. http://students4.autodesk.com Only 3D tools.
-
Don't see AutoCAD here. http://students4.autodesk.com Only 3D tools.
from the link:
About Autodesk, Inc.
Autodesk, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADSK) is wholly focused on ensuring that great ideas are turned into reality. With seven million users, Autodesk is the world's leading software and services company
That would be MOSTLY AutoCAD users. Besides that, AutoCAD is a 3D tool.